On 2/27/2025 9:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:I mean, it IS simulating itself. That's the whole POINT.
Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to >>>>> get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.
On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls >>>>>> that simulator.
Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the >>>>>>> one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this >>>>>>> input.
On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact >>>>>>>>> that HHH emulates this DD.On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution. >>>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.
I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite
recursion.
must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
When-so-ever any correct simulating termination analyzer
correctly determines that it must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
always correct to reject this input finite string as
specifying non terminating behavior.
This is a tautology thus all rebuttals are necessarily incorrect.
On 2/27/2025 9:55 AM, joes wrote:
Am Thu, 27 Feb 2025 09:26:14 -0600 schrieb olcott:
On 2/27/2025 1:42 AM, joes wrote:I mean, it IS simulating itself. That's the whole POINT.
Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 22:34:31 -0600 schrieb olcott:Your requirement that a simulating termination analyzer / halt decider
On 2/26/2025 9:50 AM, joes wrote:
Am Wed, 26 Feb 2025 08:45:50 -0600 schrieb olcott:In other words you are requiring simulating termination analyzers to >>>>> get stuck in infinite execution. That is a stupid requirement.
On 2/26/2025 3:29 AM, joes wrote:No. Changing the simulator changes the input, because the input calls >>>>>> that simulator.
Am Tue, 25 Feb 2025 20:13:43 -0600 schrieb olcott:Unless having no influence causes itself to never terminate then the >>>>>>> one influence that it must have is stopping the emulation of this >>>>>>> input.
On 2/25/2025 5:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The behavior of DD emulated by HHH only refers to DD and the fact >>>>>>>>> that HHH emulates this DD.On on hand, the simulator can have no influence on the execution. >>>>>>>> On the other, that same simulator is part of the program.
You don't understand this simple entanglement.
I don't make the rules. You are the one constructing infinite
recursion.
must get stuck in infinite recursion remains very stupid.
When-so-ever any correct simulating termination analyzer
correctly determines that it must abort the simulation
of its input to prevent its own infinite execution it is
always correct to reject this input finite string as
specifying non terminating behavior.
This is a tautology thus all rebuttals are necessarily incorrect.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 495 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 47:32:33 |
Calls: | 9,745 |
Calls today: | 5 |
Files: | 13,742 |
Messages: | 6,184,389 |